|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 10, 2010 16:41:31 GMT
Pointless data Leif, if they keep measuring the every expanding specks it will only lead to one conclusion: we are getting more specks. I don't think anybody asked for your opinion on this. But, indeed, we might end up with only specks and no spots. Rather the other way around: only speck and no spots => grand minimum. I (and other) have speculated that the Maunder Minimum was just like this. I sincerely hope so, as I'm a little bit proud of helping Livingston in his endeavor. And BTW, L&P is not theory but direct measurements by one of the best observers in the world, using one of the best telescopes.
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Sept 10, 2010 18:20:34 GMT
Leif said: "I (and other) have speculated that the Maunder Minimum was just like this."
Do you expect anything more than a low cycle, or can we expect a longer period of low activity (e.g. a real minimum).
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 10, 2010 19:09:56 GMT
Leif said: "I (and other) have speculated that the Maunder Minimum was just like this." Do you expect anything more than a low cycle, or can we expect a longer period of low activity (e.g. a real minimum). Hard to say. Really low cycles in the past usually come several in a row, so based on that ...
|
|
|
Post by elbuho on Sept 12, 2010 22:42:33 GMT
Doctor Livingstone, I presume? ;D Where is hiding? Any news?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 13, 2010 2:09:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by elbuho on Sept 14, 2010 0:28:24 GMT
Thanks Dr. 2000 gauss ... It seems clear that the new cycle is not influencing the Livingstone & Penn effect. Will we have Eddy's Minimum? ;D
|
|
|
Post by George Kominiak on Sept 16, 2010 12:13:47 GMT
Hey Guys!
L&P have submitted a new paper and the reaction to it does not appear to be unfriendly.
***Link deleted***
G.
George the linked supplied is not to a paper authored by either Bill Livingston or Matt Penn. It is a report written by an author than uses their work to provide a linkage to Global Warming hypothesis done in a sneeky and nefarious manner. As Carla has pointed out nothing contained in the piece is new material. Get Barardelli to scratch the AGW bilge and the link will be permitted.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by csspider57 on Sept 16, 2010 13:47:44 GMT
Sounds like more of the same as before George, or is this a confirmation that sunspots still may disappear? (almost entirely) I giggled at Bill's comment.. he says. "Only the passage of time will tell whether the solar cycle will pick up." Still, he adds, there's no doubt that sunspots "are not very healthy right now." Instead of the robust spots surrounded by halolike zones called penumbrae, as seen during the last solar maximum (photo), most of the current crop looks "rather peaked," with few or no penumbrae. The passage of whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
|
|
bongo
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by bongo on Sept 16, 2010 19:13:28 GMT
I don't often post on this forum as frankly I can barely understand half of it.
What I do understand is that, in this context at least, Isvalgaard is just disseminating the L&P data. The attacks on this seem bizarre to say the least. The earlier methodological criticisms were fairly weak, but this idea that they have presented a theory as opposed to just reporting the data is hurting my head. My hypotheses are that those involved are either Trolls, envious or retarded, or all of the above.
I am loathe to reignite matters, but I would really like to watch those who actually know what they are talking about exploring what possible theories (note - not data) are, so those that don't might actually learn something about this rather unusual development that seems to be going on.
Then again Isvalgaard seems to be holding his own and maybe this will just form a little sideshow to the main event as 2016 draws near.
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Sept 19, 2010 5:40:39 GMT
Bongo-
Science is truly a contentious affair with people arguing until they are well beyond blue in the face, this is as it should be, and I thank L & P for putting out a great hypothesis for folks to shoot at.
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Sept 19, 2010 5:52:49 GMT
Leif- I understand you keep an updated L & P magnetic record, can you provide a link? I could not find it on your website. Also, what do you think of this paper: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102112048.htmIf L & P are right, and these authors are right, what do L & P hypothesis mean for the solar wind?
|
|
|
Post by ncfcadam on Sept 19, 2010 10:33:31 GMT
I don't often post on this forum as frankly I can barely understand half of it. What I do understand is that, in this context at least, Isvalgaard is just disseminating the L&P data. The attacks on this seem bizarre to say the least. The earlier methodological criticisms were fairly weak, but this idea that they have presented a theory as opposed to just reporting the data is hurting my head. My hypotheses are that those involved are either Trolls, envious or retarded, or all of the above. I am loathe to reignite matters, but I would really like to watch those who actually know what they are talking about exploring what possible theories (note - not data) are, so those that don't might actually learn something about this rather unusual development that seems to be going on. Then again Isvalgaard seems to be holding his own and maybe this will just form a little sideshow to the main event as 2016 draws near. Bongo, it's more that certain people have a belief that the solar cycle is driven (or modulated anyway) by the motion of the planets. L and P is inconvenient for them and it provokes some astonishing hostility.
|
|
|
Post by fabron on Sept 19, 2010 15:14:35 GMT
Over at the WUWT lsvalgaard is doing his best to defend the L&P against a detailed data objections.
|
|
bongo
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by bongo on Sept 19, 2010 17:31:19 GMT
Thanks ncfcadam
You have made things clearer. could you explain why the data is inconvenient for them, or point me in the right direction?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 19, 2010 19:20:17 GMT
Leif- I understand you keep an updated L & P magnetic record, can you provide a link? I could not find it on your website. Also, what do you think of this paper: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102112048.htmIf L & P are right, and these authors are right, what do L & P hypothesis mean for the solar wind? www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.pngPaper is OK. Since there is not much difference between 1400 Gauss [no spots] and 1600 Gauss [with spots], the solar wind will not be much affected. We know that during the Maunder Minimum when no spots were visible, cosmic ray modulation [caused by the solar wind] was almost as strong as today.
|
|